Why Are the Goal Posts Moving?

The FTA is really trying to kill rail projects in the United States. So it seems are the folks over at the Sierra Club in Seattle. In Charlotte, the FTA is requiring that the North Corridor LRT be 65% through preliminary engineering before they can enter into preliminary engineering in the federal process. This means that you can do all of the work and they can come in and say they don't like it, which means you might be out of luck and need to spend millions to re-engineer something they don't like. It used to be 30% so the plan could be analyzed earlier. My first question would be if they make BRT projects do the same or if they get special treatment because they are the administrations favorite mode. Another question is why does the FTA have so much power over transit projects but the FHWA just doles out highway money to the states to spend on whatever freeway they like? They pay 80% for freeways and 50% for transit, doesn't seem fair that they have control over where your line goes or define your project by what they think cost effectiveness is (hint: no one's cost effectiveness is the same as theirs except anti transit folks).

I wouldn't have a problem with this if the FTA had more money and was likely to fund more projects. But they don't and they aren't. In fact lately they have been tightening the screws. This year had the least number of projects in the new starts process than any year previous. In the late 90s there were usually around 40 projects in Preliminary Engineering. Today there are 10. Yes 10 projects. Out of all the planned projects (At least 50) that I've listed in the Transit Space Race for expansion in the United States, there are only 10 projects in preliminary engineering. Administrator Simpson claims that the Bush administration has funded more projects than during Clinton, but we know that most of these projects were started during the 90s and they are only now able to start shutting off the money with Secretary Peters at the helm.

This is a direct result of the Bush administration's disdain for transit. And while its likely to get better with a new administration, there is going to be a big fight for the new transportation bill to see where money goes in 2009. The Mary Peters set including Wendell Cox and Ken Orski are saying that there is no need for new rail starts in the United States. They say the rail expansion is over and right now they have the ears of the politicos at the FTA.

Which brings me to Seattle. The Sierra Club all over the United States has really fried my bacon, with the exception of Boston. Those guys are doing a great job, but here in Marin and up in Seattle they don't get it. In Marin like Seattle, the SC is lobbying against the train because it will bring growth. It's coming whether you like it or not. You can let all those people drive all the way into town or you can build a line that allows for TOD and expansion of transit PMT. But in addition, whether you like it or not, parking is big in the FTA models I discussed above which are a large part of the cost effectiveness measure. In fact, I would wager that if the Sierra Club got its wish, there would be no federal money for the extensions in Seattle and the lines would be funded completely by local taxes. I'm not sure that would sit well with folks up there. There are better ways to control growth than not building an important transit line.

Reading the New Starts Report

I cracked open the 2009 New Starts Report today and started reading through the ratings and commentary, there were a few themes that jumped out at me.

Bus Bias: We know that the FTA has been anti-rail recently from the uproar over the Dulles decision, but the new starts report is laden with pro-bus undertones. It's not just that they are for buses, but that they don't think transit is important and are looking for short term cheap solutions that don't address the problems. I suggest a look at the promotion of BRT in the Small Starts category. Take a look and see how many of them have dedicated guideways, very few, most with a small percentage of the running way. To me, just as Aaron said over at Metro Rider LA today, this is a waste of money. And as much as I like streetcars, they need their own lane if they are going to be doing line haul operations.

The FTA has introduced a new metric to judge projects called Making the Case, which is highly subjective and seems to push against the choice of locally preferred alternative (LPA) by local jurisdictions. While the government might want to be watchful over money, I don't understand where they would know better than the locals about what type of transportation is wanted or needed.

A few examples from Sacramento ,Charlotte, and Orlando.

Sacramento - However, the “case” does not explain why an extension of LRT is better than anything else that can be done to meet mobility needs in the corridor. Downtown express buses are dismissed as adding congestion to downtown streets without quantifying their effect, and of not serving intermediate stations in the existing South LRT line without providing evidence of travel demand to such areas. Joint development opportunities presented in the Making the Case document are reflected in the project’s ratings for transit-supportive land use.

Charlotte - The “case” for the project acknowledges that the Northeast Corridor is low density with auto-oriented development patterns. Given the description of the existing corridor, it is unclear from the “case” for the project why the LRT line is preferred over more economical bus improvements.

Orlando - The CFRCT project would result in a new rail transit line running north-south parallel to I-4 and through downtown Orlando. The “case” for the project provides no discussion of travel patterns within this corridor. While travel time comparisons between rail, bus, and private vehicle were presented for three origin-destination pairs, there was no explanation of why these pairs are highlighted. I-4 is described as congested and getting worse, but the “case” for the project provides no justification that it will effectively serve I-4 travel markets, or why a significant investment in rail operating at 15-minute peak frequencies is necessary in a corridor in which existing bus transit service is described as “limited.”

I'll tell you why Mr. New Starts writer guy, because people don't get excited about riding a bus on a freeway. Developers don't spend money on dense development around freeway bus service. When we think of why cities build rail, which is to attract new riders, new development, and increase operating efficiency, we know now that these things don't matter any more to the folks in the Bush FTA and pushing economical bus improvements gets minimal or no ridership and land use increases. You get what you pay for.

Operations efficiency importance reduced: The operating efficiency measure that was once measured has been rolled into our favorite overarching measure, cost effectiveness. Again people will say that this is rolled into the cost effectiveness measure but not separating it out from the annualized project costs of the C/E limits visibility of the benefits. It also ignores the fact that generating greater ridership numbers by rail with lower per rider costs can grow ridership for transit agencies at a lower operations cost. Remember that the LACMTA spent over a billion dollars on buses because of the consent decree but ridership stayed flat.

As adopted in the June 2007 Guidance on New Starts and Small Starts Policies and Procedures, FTA will no longer evaluate operating efficiencies as stand-alone criteria. Instead, this document clarifies that the operating efficiencies of proposed New Starts projects are adequately captured under FTA’s measure for cost effectiveness.

Ignoring transit's ability to change land use: It seems that there is an attempt to undermine transit lines that do not go through the densest areas. We already know that when you ask them about measuring economic development, they kind of shrug their shoulders and say "we can't do it". In the most recent NPRM the FTA stated, "Although many studies have shown, ex poste, that transit projects have had an impact on economic development, few predictive tools are available in standard practice and development of new tools seems infeasible in the short run." In other words, we don't want to do it.

There is another new measure in the land use category called "Performance and Impacts of Policies". This is supposed to assess how policies to promote transit oriented development are working. Well in the North Corridor in Charlotte, its reported that the market is not there yet. Well duh, the development market follows the line, yet its penalized for not being there yet (gets a medium instead of a high). This is contrary to what we've seen along the South Corridor, which is documented in the North Corridor report.

The Charlotte CBD has seen a considerable amount of residential as well as commercial development in recent years. In the South Corridor, the pace of development has been slow but is accelerating with $300 million in projects completed and over $1.5 million proposed in station areas outside of Uptown.

Strong regional growth is forecast(75 percent by 2030) and a market analysis for the Northeast Corridor suggested that just over 5,000 acres (84 percent of station area land) had the potential for redevelopment. Current market conditions in most Northeast Corridor station areas are relatively weak, however, and barriers exist that appear to limit development potential in the near term.

I'm not quite sure how they came up with a medium rating with the information that they give above. How do they decide to rate these things anyway? I've read the land use guidance and it doesn't make it very clear either. Another thing that does not make sense to me is that even if the city has good transit supportive land use policies, the existing land use could kill it, pushing rail's value for building places instead of just transporting people down and marginalizing it. I'm sure that is their hope, and was pointed out quite well in a recent editorial in the Washington Post:

Shaping cities is both a goal and a consequence of investing in transportation infrastructure. Sadly, the Federal Transit Administration seems unaware of this.
...

But this is more than just eleventh-hour federal shock therapy over money. The FTA's stance is emblematic of long-standing, misguided national policy concerning all forms of rail transportation. America has been persistently reluctant to think long-term and to make long-term investments in transit serving both regional and national interests.

Reauthorization is coming up soon, hopefully some of these things and misunderstandings of transit's power to change its environment can be changed.

Bush Takes Idea from Arnold, Take Money From Transit

The presidents budget is out and low and behold, the President is going to steal from the transit fund for more highways to the tune of $3.2 Billion dollars, meaning that next year transit might not get funded. I would like to say I'm surprised but I'm not. This has been a trend that's been happening over the last few years and has increased since Mary "bike's aren't transportation" Peters became the Secretary of Transportation. From Progressive Railroading:

In addition, the Bush Administration proposes to use transit dollars to fund the federal highway account in 2009, which would reduce the balance in the federal Mass Transit Account to the point where, absent new funding, the federal transit program could not be funded in 2010, even at the current level, said American Public Transportation Association (APTA) President William Millar in a prepared statement.

“APTA is outraged that the Bush Administration’s budget request would cut $202.1 million for public transportation and proposes to transfer an estimated $3.2 billion dedicated for public transportation to fund highway projects,” he said.

New Starts Funding in the Federal Budget

Small Starts funding has been published for a number of projects including the Portland Streetcar Eastside Loop to the surprise of many. Portland Transport has more about it with the usual commenters. Check out the list below for projects with funding.

CEI: Magic Numbers From a Magic Computer

This is directly related to a number of previous posts that I've had about the dumb cost-effectiveness measurement that the FTA uses. Apparently now we're calling an important investment based on a magic number now. How did they choose that magic number? Well it has to do with ridership and travel times and cost of the project. You're not allowed to use transit oriented growth, just what the MPO predicts for the district surrounding the station from an outdated 2000 census. Economic development isn't included which produces value for the region, the FTA will say that travel time includes this measure and they say that with serious faces. Don't expect to count VMT reductions because thats just not possible either. Cities starting out don't get to use a rail bias which we know exists. The Pioneer Press Reports:

In its simplest form, the CEI is a basic ratio: capital and operating costs divided by time saved. "Another way to say it might be 'cost per user benefit,' " said Arlene McCarthy, head planner for the Metropolitan Council, the lead agency heading up the Central Corridor effort.

...

The computer programs that calculate the CEI draw on transportation data from the census, honed down to areas the size of a few city blocks. The programs look at the entire region and attempt to project what commuters would do differently if the rail were built this way or that way.

There's even a sub-variable in that portion known as "rail bias," which states that some people never take buses but will give up their cars to take a train. It's real, planners say. No one knew the metro area's rail bias before the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis was built, and they say that's one of the reasons that Hiawatha's ridership today is 58 percent higher than projected before construction.

Cost per user benefit. Not benefits that the project brings to everyone, just the user. That one person. I wonder what would happen if they applied this index to highways.

In any event, here the article about that ridiculous index that has kept many a city from building a transit line. It might not let Minneapolis build the Central Corridor, because they want to build a tunnel to bypass the heavy foot traffic at the University and make a future connection to a major train hub. Apparently its one or the other, even though it would be cheaper to do it now rather than later. Did they consider that? The Hiawatha Line which is way over ridership did not pass the test, yet look at it now. Guess how it passed? Land Use considerations. But those don't matter as much anymore. It's all this index. Yes, I'm still bitter about Columbus Ohio. I highly suggest the read.

Sign Em Up for a North Corridor

While the libertarians in Charlotte are still whining because they got destroyed in the election, the city is moving on. Charlotte allocated $30 million dollars for engineering studies for entrance into the FTA New Starts Program. Now it is great to report that but I'm starting to wonder what is going to happen with the program now that a lot more cities are seeking expansions. A lot of cities are going to be seeking funding for multiple lines now that they have starters which makes me think that the program better change soon to accommodate the natural increase, before we even start to talk about increasing it.

CATS plans to periodically assess how it stands with the FTA as it proceeds with the two-year engineering study. The council approved a $9.5 million payment to STV Monday, enough for the first phase of the study.

Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory stressed that the engineering contract is structured so there are "outs" if the initial engineering reports aren't favorable.

He also cautioned that even if ridership numbers appear to meet federal requirements, "we'll be in competition with a lot of other cities."

I'm worried now after the Dulles issue that the FTA will just string cities along. It's also annoying that cities are worried about competing with other cities for such a small piece of transit pie. You could spend $30 million (seems like a lot of money) and do everything right and get rejected for being a dollar over an arbitrary cost measure. Which by the way is based on ridership numbers that have seemed a little low lately. It's ridiculous that it has become a competition of cost rather than creating a quality transit system. It seems to me that we should be working together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil with a multitude of solutions. Charlotte's first rail line, which has been about 3,000 riders a day over projections, has been a success but local planners are worried after what happened to the Dulles line. Apparently the initial rejection (It's now paused) of that line has greater implications than we thought, but we can hope the next administration is better about transit and funding it. From the T&I hearing, looks like we might have a shot.

House T&I Hearing

On the 17th there was a hearing on the National Surface Transportation Policy Report. CSPAN has the unedited video. It's a long video (3 hours), but here are a few highlights I got while listening through it. They aren't direct quotes because the stream can't really be rewound and I haven't seen a transcript, but I typed the ideas I thought were interesting.

Rep. John Mica (R - Florida)

- Hopes that infrastructure is a major part of the stimulus package because the money will stay in the United States -

Unfortunately we know that won't happen...

Mr. Oberstar (D - Minnesota)

- the administration won't be here when we make decisions on these things anyways -

Mr. Defazio (D - Oregon)

- China and others are making massive investments. Moving towards a third world transportation system - We are investing less than we need to in order to just maintain what we built in the Eisenhower era - I look forward to discussing this issue with a more enlightened administration -

Rep. Duncan (R - Tennessee)

- Streamlining environmental processes are important 7-10 years here is way to slow - Want to reduce the dependence on foreign energy sources - We are spending megabillions in other counties besides our own - We need to start keeping our money here and providing for the American People -

Steve Heminger - MTC

- 120 M more citizens by 2050 - Most of those American's will live in Metropolitan areas
50 areas account for 60% of GDP - 90% of market share for Auto related air pollution, congestion, transit ridership - Over 40,000 people die on highways every year that's a 9-11 every month -

Frank Busalacchi Wisconsin DOT

- Intercity Passenger Rail must be a part of a multi-modal solution. We don't envision rail replacing other modes -

Matt Rose - BNSF

- High Speed Passenger Rail must be in the Next Transportation Bill - must not overburden freight railways and build corridor service -

Frank McArdle - NYC

- 1 Bedroom Apartment in Manhattan for $20,000 dollars - 30 years later $800,000 dollars - People want to be in Manhattan that works well because of its transit system - It creates value -
We now rely on petroleum for 97% of the energy that runs our transportation system -
2/3rds of all petroleum goes to our transportation system -

Pat Quinn - US Express Trucking Company

- Bottlenecks create more goods on the road creating more trucks and more congestion -
There is no alternative today to congestion pricing due to the needs that need to be met - I don't like saying that from my position but it's needed -

Tom Skancky - Transportation Consultant Las Vegas Nevada

- When you add 1 Federal dollar to a project it adds 14 years to the process - NEPA is part of that but not the whole thing - $1 billion project today costs tax payers $2-3 billion dollars to 2022 because of inflation, bidding etc. - 5 years instead of 14 years per project would save us money -

Paul Weyrich - Chairman and CEO of Free Congress Foundation

- Half of the country does not have any mass transit, and of the cities that have transit, many don't operate a system worthy of getting people out of their automobiles - People do not like to ride buses - Which is why the commission recommended an increasing dependence on electric rail, particularly cities that don't have it now - It is imperative that we offer people a choice - No one wants to put a gun to anyones head and tell them they have to ride transit, we want to have the kinds of systems in place such as in new communities - Transit in the great society aimed at transit dependent. Became thought of as a program for the poor and elderly. Look at Metra in Chicago. Most of the people riding that system are Republicans, most are business people, most come into Chicago with their suits and briefcases-

Mr. Oberstar (D - Minnesota)

-A strong message to congress, do not reauthorize the transportation bill - We need a renewed mission statement for transit -

Mr. Baird (D - Washington)

Q: We need to do dynamic scoring of infrastructure investment that captures the value of investment - The FTA has established a cost effectiveness index, how do you calculate that bump in economic development?

Mr. Oberstar (D - Minnesota)

Why can't the investment consequence be calculated into the cost effectiveness index? These are investments in the community, why can't they be calculated?

A Step Towards Death, But the Ledge Is Still Far Away

The Washington Post is reporting that the FTA has all but killed the Dulles Rail project. Everyone is saying almost because they know it isn't dead. Governor Kaine, Senator Warner and others are going to fight back hard and I expect you'll see some congressional intervention. Virginia Transportation Chief Pierce Homer told the Washington Times, "We believe there will be rail on this corridor, the only question is whether there will be a federal partner in doing that."

At issue according to Administrator Simpson is funding for the capital maintenance backlog of projects that Metro has not completed along with the change orders not submitted in writing to the FTA. Officials dispute the amount but any backlog has been exacerbated by the year to year funding that is not permanent and often in doubt.

Much of Northern Virginia has been planning their new growth along the rail line because they learned from the Rosslyn Ballston Corridor that has created walkable neighborhoods, boosted tax base and shown that TOD is a real solution to autocentricity. This is a real blow to their efforts as well.

But what does this mean for everyone else? The implications of this death are not just for Metro and Northern Virginia but the rest of the country as well. Heavy Rail line expansions have been limited lately due to costs because the FTA doesn't measure all the real benefits of these projects. If this project goes down, what does that mean for expansions of Heavy Rail in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Baltimore and Miami? Other regions are building light rail and staying away from heavy rail completely. A complaint is that the areas aren't dense enough, but neither was the Rosslyn Ballston corridor before that was built, so the economic development issue needs to be addressed before the next transportation bill comes out.

For more commentary on this, I suggest a visit to The Bellows, or DCist for commentary and comments about the project.

Central Corridor Issues

I often wonder if the Twin Cities is ever going to get its act together on the Central Corridor. I think Governor Pawlenty is part of the problem by not getting funding for the project earlier, and now holding out. He's acting a bit like the FTA with the Dulles Rail line or Arnold with High Speed Rail. All wanting to hold it back until it dies.

"...They Wasted Everyone's Time and Money"

Update: I wrote this post last week and this morning right after posting, there is an article in the Washington Post about Mary Peters Ideology when it comes to transit and investment in infrastructure. You can find it here.

In the Washington Post there was an article which discussed that even though the Dulles Airport Extension to Metro has gone through all of the hoops that the FTA has set up for it, it might still not get funded. Why? Because the Bushies don't like rail transit. In fact they don't like it so much that they are willing to kill it because of a famous road project that cost way more than it was supposed to and still hasn't delivered on its environmental offsets; The Big Dig.

Federal officials remain skeptical of the plan to extend Metrorail to Dulles International Airport and might reject it, even though their consultants recently found that the proposal meets requirements for full funding, government and project sources said.

Officials with the Federal Transit Administration say they are concerned about the price tag and the specter of another Big Dig, the Boston project built by the same contractor in charge of the Dulles rail line, which took years longer and cost millions more than planned, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the negotiations are sensitive. In addition, the agency has been reluctant to promote large-scale transit projects.

And what is this comment about moving away from infrastructure as Quade points out? Surely that can't be true? Why didn't they say the same thing about three other projects in the New Starts pipeline that have big budgets? Seattle's line to the University($1.6 Billion), New Jersey's Access to the Core ($7.3 Billion), and the Long Island East Side Access Project ($2.6 Billion). But the Dulles project is about $2.06 Billion. So what's the rub? Why pick on this project? This screams a basic ideological bias. But tell us something we didn't know right? Congressional backers of the project even stated to the Post:

Officials on Capitol Hill, in Richmond and at the airports authority's headquarters have speculated in recent days about what the problem might be. Some say the FTA has long been skeptical of expensive rail projects; in recent years, it has more often championed bus rapid transit projects.

Bingo. There has been no recent evidence to be against big rail projects. In fact does anyone know of a big rail project that hasn't delivered recently? I know the Silver Line BRT in Boston hasn't delivered on promises and locals call it the Silver Lie but light rail projects in Denver, Houston, Charlotte, Minneapolis and St. Louis have delivered, all of them far exceeding ridership projections.

But basically the DOT is waging an ideological battle. And so far, as Ryan states at The Bellows quite succinctly, "...they wasted everyone's time and money".

As the linked Post piece makes clear, it’s not the Silver Line’s specifics that are the issue, it’s an ideological opposition to big new transit lines. I think that’s dumb, but I think it’s even more dumb to nonetheless pretend that normal operating rules apply with regard to consideration of big new transit lines only to back out for ideological reasons after all the planning has been done and construction is underway. At any moment during this process, the feds could have said, we’re not going to go ahead with this money, because we don’t like new heavy rail lines. Instead, they wasted everyone’s time and money.

This comes just a few days after the release of a National Surface Transportation Commission Report panned by DOT Secretary Mary "Bikes Aren't Transportation" Peters where the dissenting side led by the Secretary claimed falsely that there were not enough cost-effective rail projects to spend money on. Looks like there is a project in DC that needs some money and has merit. And there are more like it such as the Subway to the Sea in Los Angeles.

But in addition, there have been rumors floating around that certain pieces of that report pertaining to light rail and electric transit were approved by the commission but taken out mysteriously before the final printing. When learning about pro-rail segments being taken out of the report, Commissioner,Staunch Conservative, and rail advocate Paul Weyrich stated,

“It is disappointing that after the paragraphs indicated were passed by a nine to three vote that someone without ever asking me would see to it to do away with these important policy considerations, Weyrich said to NCI. “ It is the kind of gutter politics which make people hate their government, and Washington in general."

Now we know where the battle lines are drawn. It's time for a new direction.

Local Money for Starter Lines

There has been a lot of news lately on the federal process in Kansas City and in Houston. Kansas City is floundering and their leaders have about 10 different ideas as to what to do. Some say streetcar (please no), others say rapid streetcar or LRT (yes) and others are even calling for subways (perhaps but not likely). Aside from that, the debate is also about whether to go with federal funding or not. Some argue that it needs to be done with federal funding because then the starter line will get 50% funding (It should be 80% like freeways but that's another post). I'm going to argue that cities today should start on their own. The reason? Time and Politics.

What has time got to do with it? Everything. Because time means political will and citizen backing, time means money and time means solutions. The shorter amount of time that occurs between the start of the idea and operation of the first line, the better off the city is and the more people see tangible results.

Charlotte just opened its first light rail line and used federal funding to build it. The CATS experience serves as a warning to new transit cities who take the network view on transit expansion. When we look back at it now, it does not seem like such a long time, but the 10 years or so it took to build caused a lot of trouble and roadblocks along the way. Charlotte escaped but others have not been so lucky.

The time it took for this project to be completed led to cost overruns because of inflation and a referendum that almost stopped expansion. The Seattle streetcar (This is just a time comparison, not technology) took from idea to opening only five. The Seattle Streetcar didn't seek federal funding, didn't have to wait for the federal government to approve the process. Phoenix's Light Rail system first showed up in the federal process in 1999 and will be completed next year 2008.

But why is this important? The time it takes to build a line is not and should not be ten years. Whole interurban and street transit networks were built in 10 years at the end of the 19th century. The wait for federal funds in todays highway centric government is not worth the wait in

A. Cost
B. Political Will.

The cost issue rears its ugly head when calculating for inflation. You can't calculate that far ahead of time as to what inflation is going to bring. And you don't start buying materials until later on in the process. Charlotte saw this happen as are other projects, not just rail. And recently the Light Rail to Milwaukie in Portland has a high cost estimate, I'm guessing because the planning is keeping up with the federal timeline (Now 10 years standard). Not that this is a starter line, but its been under planning for so long, its no wonder the cost keeps getting higher.

Another issue is political will. The longer the process is, the less people who were involved at the start are likely to still be involved and 10 years in politics is eons. Charlotte was lucky to have the same Mayor and Transit Chief throughout the whole ordeal. I would say that is one of a few reasons why Austin moved to commuter rail, because they lost pro rail leaders along the way like Kirk Watson who now happens to be back as the head of CAMPO.

But not only do leaders matter, the opposition solidifies behind mistakes and as we saw in Charlotte can led to a referendum or a no vote for more funding. Salt Lake City has been the beneficiary of good news and good moves when it comes to politics. And we saw they will be rewarded with a huge 70 mile expansion and 5 new lines. This is after a starter line and very short extensions that have surpassed ridership expectations by leaps and bounds breeding confidence in the system and creating a mostly (there will always be naysayers) positive political environment.

So the time issue is important. The next issue is the expansion. Generally large cities are trying to build expansive transit networks instead of just one line. So the starter line is really just that, a start. But its an important step again because of the politics aspect. Cities such as Houston and Minneapolis are enjoying pro transit political will because of their great ridership numbers and community benefit. Minneapolis went with federal funding for the first line and is going for it again for the Central Corridor. If they keep up at this rate, they will have a transit network in 50 years with 5 lines. Remember, 50 years is the total amount of time it took to build the national federal highway system and all they are going to get through the federal process is 5 lines and maybe a city center streetcar?

Houston on the other hand, along with Salt Lake City and Denver will build 5 new lines in the next ten years. Why? Because they got political will from their starter lines and have forged ahead with local and federal funding for expansion. Salt Lake City signed a deal for the FTA to pay for 20% of their expansion after upping their sales tax for new transit while Houston will likely get 50% funding for two lines. Houston was able to build light rail on its corridors because they also got their rail bias ridership set and networked the corridors in the modeling. This means that any cities first line might be able to qualify for federal funding because its a good candidate, but it will be even better for expansions to other areas of the city which might not have as good of numbers. Cities might also be able to spend a little more money on the starter making sure everything is right instead of letting the feds take out elements that increase ridership like an extra station here and a subway segment there. The rail bias adjustment makes the extensions better able to qualify for federal funding under the cost effectiveness measure.

So if we are playing by the current rules set by the FTA and current funding levels, you can bet that cities will be waiting even longer for transit money. Especially if cities that already have starter lines are starting to ask for money for expansions making the field even more crowded than it is currently. In short, if you want it done fast and you want to build out fast, build it yourself, and come for help on a network later.

High Ridership = Rail Bias

So the FTA does this thing to cities that haven't had a rail project where the first project is not given a rail bias. We know a bias exists and is about 34-43% according to a TRB report by Ed Tennyson. So in cities like Portland and Denver where they are extending their lines, they were able to use their bias. However cities like Minneapolis and Charlotte weren't able to. In 2020, the Hiawatha line was supposed to get 24,000 riders a day. But here it is 2007, 13 years away from the goal and ridership is at 29,000.

So after a year's worth of ridership data, Charlotte planners will be able to use the bias that they weren't able to use on the first line, which if the FTA used current regulations, wouldn't even have been built. Charlotte got a medium low on their cost effectiveness rating, which now the FTA says you must have a medium to even get into Preliminary Engineering. But guess what they use to calculate cost effectiveness? Ridership! Which seems to be behind recently; Houston, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Denver have all opened lines recently and have had much higher ridership than predicted. So higher numbers lead to better CE measures, but new lines aren't allowed the bias. Does this mean that new lines aren't afforded the right numbers? Ask the folks in Columbus Ohio. Early indications say that ridership in Charlotte will be exceeded. 9,000 riders were expected and so far daily numbers have been around 12,000. I expect it will die down a little but as more development on the South Corridor comes online, more ridership will be added. What this tells me is that more cities are going to get the short end of the New Starts stick. Is anyone else ready for a new administration that cares about urban issues?

Lake Oswego Rapid Streetcar Steps Toward Reality

They discarded the Rapid Bus and now are doing the EIS with either rapid streetcar or bus with system management. The best part about the streetcar is that the Tri-Met Capital funding coffers wouldn't even receive a small dent due to the fact that the ROW is worth so much. If they get a federal match, the ROW would be worth $75 million and the FTA could possibly take care of the rest of the total cost.

This would be the first modern application of the Rapid Streetcar idea. It would connect to the City of Lake Oswego to the South Waterfront Streetcar while using the same vehicles.

Houston vs. FTA Update

As it turns out, Houston had submitted documents to the FTA describing rail ready BRT lines that could be converted at some point. They just decided to go straight to light rail instead. In an article today in the Houston Chronicle, the information requested from the FTA was found to be mostly documents that Metro had already submitted. The letter that was sent seems like a last ditch effort by the FTA political appointees to scare Metro into keep moving towards the FTA's currently favored mode.

The FTA's motives for withdrawing its approval after earlier approving the planned conversion to rail are unclear, but the move smacks of partisan vindictiveness. Although Little claimed in her letter that federal guidelines required the proposal to be resubmitted, Metro officials pointed out that the document's harsh tone was a striking change from previous cooperation between the agencies.

Metro's initial plan called for rail to be laid and covered on the BRT routes in preparation for an eventual shift to trains. After the FTA allowed different formulas to be used in measuring potential ridership for the lines, Metro officials decided rail construction was feasible for all the routes.

Hopefully by next November all this political jostling will be over. However I would also like to see the transit agencies stand up to the FTA and tell their congressmen they are tried of having to deal with ideology when building their transit systems. With agencies not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them, they have just let the FTA continue to push towards higher and more ridiculous standards that keeps some cities from even applying for federal funds. Perhaps this move by Metro is the first in a set of moves by the transit industry to fight back. The Chronicle editorial says it best and speaks for all transit agencies in its comments below.

Houston needs an expanded mass transit system sooner rather than later. Our elected federal officials who support that plan need to make their voices heard at the FTA to counter rail opponents and make sure backroom power plays do not delay construction.

When Alternatives Analysis is a Wasteful Exercise

JMD at Transit in Utah points out a few projects in Los Angeles that will have to go through the AA process to get federal funding and finish their environmental assesment when it ends up wasting money. 1. The Subway to the Sea - Why would you do an AA with a BRT alternative when there is already BRT running on the street? 2. Expo Phase II - The first half is Light Rail, why require a transfer to BRT? 3. The Downtown Connector - This was supposed to connect the gold line to the blue line directly without a transfer. But why would you study a BRT connection between the two when the point was to connect the directly.

I understand doing an AA on a new corridor and in some places BRT is the best tool for the job, but forcing a study of it as an alternative when its obviously a waste of money is ridiculous. Use it to study different route alternatives instead. Besides, it looks like we are going to have to save all the money we can with the crazy inflation that is going on and the lowering of the dollar's value against other world currencies.

Those BRT Lovers at the FTA Again

Update: Here is a copy of the letter sent to Metro in Houston. I encourage you to read it as it shows the FTA's BRT bias. They had no problems changing from LRT to BRT but balk when Houston wants to go back.

These guys are ridiculous. Houston was told by the FTA that they would have to resubmit engineering forms for Preliminary Engineering now that they've gone to LRT from BRT. The annoying part is that these guys don't quit trying to water down transit. I can't wait for this administration to be gone so this crap stops happening.

But perhaps the thing that annoys me the most is that these lines were to be planned to always be LRT. In fact the EIS was supposed to have a convertible alternative in it where they would build the line and run buses on it. The FTA can't call takebacks on this as its in the New Starts Report for Houston. So they decided to change the timeline and go LRT early. It's not like the FTA didn't know they were going to do it eventually. This is a stall tactic and I'm wondering if someone named Culbertson isn't behind the details. The current congressional delegation needs to step up now and set it straight.

Second Avenue Gets FFGA from FTA

They've been waiting a while for this $1.3 Billion cash infusion from the FTA. Seems as though they might finally get what they've been seeking all these years. Check out Second Avenue Sagas, a great blog about New York Transit in general and their discussion about this.

Why The Decision in Houston is a Big Deal for Everyone

While the decision to go with Light Rail for 5 corridors caught a lot of people by surprise in Houston, it might have opened up a floodgate for cities to get funding for new transit projects. I can't stress enough how big this network effect is to cities who want to build new rail transit networks. Because the federal funding process is getting tighter, cities that want to build rail networks are going to have to get creative and Denver, Houston, and Salt Lake City have so far done that in their quest for funding.

It's interesting to note that some folks around the country might have been paying attention. Mayor Funkhouser in Kansas City believes that its a regional plan or nothing for his area. Some have thought it was a bit heavy handed of him to declare Clay Chastain's plan dead, but if he's thinking about really getting federal funding for a new transit system, he needs to lead the region towards a solution that will eventually get funding. Through the current rules, it looks like a high ridership starter line that can pass the current administration's cost effectiveness test (which Chastain's plan might not have) is how it should start. The other reason is that you'll need this first line to fund an extended network later.

But because the current rules are geared towards low end BRT projects, (The Orange Line and Euclid BRT projects would have not passed the required Medium cost-effectiveness rating rule the administration wants) Houston's recent deal might breathe new life into the application process for new expansion lines in cities that want to drastically expand their systems. Currently cities like Minneapolis are building a line every 10 years, meaning a simple 6 line network could take 40 more years. A problem might arise however with cities that don't have a starter line so that the rail bias can be attained for ridership measures.

It's been pretty easy to get extensions funded by the FTA in the past and they are generally the best modeled in terms of ridership. But the FTA has been making projects cut down their costs to make the rating. The Central Corridor has had a cap on how much it can cost meaning the locals don't have complete control over some of the decisions including a tunnel under the university because of that cost. This is a project that should have been built about 30 years ago but people are just starting to get it. But Minneapolis has plans for two more lines, the Southwest Corridor and the Northwest Corridor. So if cities are going to get serious about building expansive transit networks, Houston has shown the way to go for the time being. With a new administration who knows what could happen, but if you have to dance with who brung ya, it seems like Houston has opened the door to the ball.

All Rails in Space City

This afternoon the Metro board finally approved rail on Richmond putting the best line forward they could even if it wasn't the best line (Thanks Afton Oaks!). In a shocker that I don't think anyone expected, they also voted for light rail on all 5 lines! But after reading Christof's blog I was wondering if what he said about funding and the FTA was true? I haven't noticed any change in the funding mechanisms so what is going on down there? Is it possible that because Tom Delay is gone they have better support from their legislators (sans "I don't like rail" Culbertson)?

This was made possible by the other surprise of the day — the Southeast Line on Scott, along with all the other 2012 lines, will be light rail, thanks to new FTA funding rules. Thus, the Southeast Line and University Line will be able to share track on Scott. And that amended idea carried.

Perhaps they have been behind the scenes like Salt Lake City working out a deal with the feds to pay for their lines in bulk since they have a master plan. I think that might be the wave of the future so other cities might want to look close at how to plan a system then get funding for it rather than going line by line. We'll probably hear about it more in the coming days. From the Chronicle:

"We now feel we can pass federal muster (to obtain 50 percent funding) by going to light rail on all five lines at once," board chairman David Wolff said. "We can't help but believe that people will be thrilled by it."

In 2005, residents and elected officials along the planned North, East End, Southeast and Uptown lines were dismayed to learn that Metro analysis showed cost and ridership on them would be too low to justify federal funding for rail.

Check out the link to Christof for a new system map.

Breaking Development in the Transit Space Race

Something big happened today. The Utah transit authority and the FTA signed an agreement that would allow the federal government to pay for 20% of Salt Lake Cities 5 line rail expansion. I'm not quite sure yet who got the better deal, but I think it was the Utah Transit Authority. According to the Deseret News:

UTA general manager John Inglish said the letter of intent, known as a memorandum of understanding, was an unprecedented agreement between a state agency and the Federal Transit Administration. Normally, transit agencies approach the federal government for funding on projects one-by-one, not as a package deal, he said.

Because the letter of intent applies to all five projects, Inglish said his agency will save what would have been years of waiting through a lengthy federal funding process.

So instead of going through the New Starts process while waiting for the FTA to reject their projects or cause cost inflation and change station locations to fit the ridership model which favors bus projects, they can actually plan to come in under budget and on time and with the projects the voters wanted. The memorandum of understanding states that UTA will fund two light rail lines and a commuter line on it's own while the FTA pays for 80% of two other light rail lines.

Ever since the New Starts program started, the federal share has been dwindling for fixed guideway projects. Starting out on the same footing as highways, federal funding began at 80% of the project cost but has since dwindled to 50% with a 10 year waiting period. While 20% overall might be a little low, the signing of the document today by the UTA has opened up options for cities that want to get into the transit space race. Cities that have been able to raise local money yet have a master plan to build a transit system. This fits into one of the reasons why I started this blog, which is to document the transit space race.

This might be a good model for cities that are just now looking to build light rail networks or who might want to get back into the hunt. Now it should be said that in keeping up with Denver and Portland, Salt Lake City had a referendum to raise their sales tax to fund their rail extensions. I know there have been a few thoughts that this might be happening but UTA was traveling under the radar until this announcement. Other cities might take notice and see this as an opportunity to make a deal with the FTA. Minneapolis is looking to build 3 more LRT lines, Tampa just announced a new rail plan and Birmingham is starting to think about it.

Houston tried to do this a few years ago but the idea got blocked by former Rep Tom Delay and John Culbertson. They asked that the FTA fund the first two rail lines while they built the next two locally. They were asking for 50% of the total and before that they were trying to use the main street line as a match. Because they couldn't get it through though, they had to downgrade some lines to BRT.

As I said before, this is a pretty big deal. It might signal a big change in how transit expansion is going to get funded. Hopefully it moves back up from 20% and perhaps the death of the process that has caused so many problems by taking quick decision making away from local jurisdictions.